BREAKING: BIG setback for Alex Jones in his bankruptcy case–federal bk Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston has tossed out both Jones's lawyer AND his chief restructuring officer. Judge cites transparency issues, incl personal expenses by Jones…

— Elizabeth Williamson (@NYTLiz) September 21, 2022

Read the full conversation.  This is happening just as Mark predicted.

You know, after the performance of TFG’s lawyers today (more on that later), it’s beginning to look like bad lawyers are going to save democracy.  The damn fools can’t get good lawyers.

Attention-getting headline aside, what did Ron De Santis do to piss off TFG? He sure pissed off me and a few tens of millions of Americans over his cheap political stunt that (I agree with Juanita Jean) is a dead-ringer for human trafficking. His depravity is all there for the world to see, and for MAGAn GOPers to get the giggles over.

But that’s not what pisses off TFG. What pisses off TFG is that de Santis is stealing his schtick. After all, according to TFG, de Santis stole his idea to pack 50 Venezuelans off to Martha’s Vineyard. That was HIS idea!

Only TFG is allowed to commit felony, it seems.

And not only that, de Santis is being given applause, praise and (most importantly) the credit for this felonious act by the GQP. Only TFG can commit felonies in full view.

Next thing you know, de Santis will claim credit for TFG’s recipe for a well-done steak smothered in ketchup.

The nerve.

Okay, so this was in the news:

Vice President Kamala Harris accused Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of “dereliction of duty” over their recent transports of migrants to Democratic-led cities.

“I think it is the height of irresponsibility … frankly, a dereliction of duty, when you are an elected leader, to play those kinds of games with human life and human beings,” Harris said in an interview with Vice News. “If you think there is a problem, be part of the solution.”

I had to read that a couple of times. Dereliction of duty? That’s what she thinks it is?

Now, I’m not going to make any friends saying this, but what the damn hell?

This, Madam Vice President, is human trafficking.

This is a full frontal assault on human decency, the Virgin Mary, the Boy Scout Code, the Ideals of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the Binglewood Homeowners Association, and every damn thing your mother taught you.

Duty is about eighteen rungs above these guys on the ladder of self actualization.

This is like saying that because these immigrants were not fed on their 16 hour journey, Abbott and DeSantis broke southern hospitality customs.

This is human trafficking. Say it.

Damn, I am tired of being being wimpy.

This morning’s news is disgusting on so many levels. Using people as political pawns. Flying them to a tiny island far from urban centers where more facilities and help are available. Using FL taxpayers’ dollars to pull the stunt. And you know a flight to Martha’s Vineyard isn’t cheap! Your constituents in FL must be so proud, Gov. DeSantis. Aren’t you something! BTW you obviously haven’t been to Massachusetts, where there are plenty of hard-working immigrants. Kudos to MV for doing their best to help these poor souls. I hate starting my morning angry. I haven’t even finished my first cup of coffee out here on the left coast. It will be a cold day in h-e-double hockey sticks before I ever set foot in FL again.

Okay, the Alex Jones trial against the families who filed in Connecticut is being live-streamed in Connecticut.  Mark is there but no official part of the trial.

Will somebody clear this up for me?

Today TFG’s lawyers filed a response to the DOJ’s filing in the matter of TFG vs. The United States of America. In that response they injected a new and intriguing argument with regard to the Presidential Records Act.

They claim that in a clause from the law, there is a flaw in the law’s wording.

Quoting: “…the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control. and preservation of and access to. the Presidential records of that President”.
(emphasis is mine).

Their argument? The law fails to use the word “must” instead of “shall” because they mean different things, even in the context of the clause’s wording.

I’m no legal eagle, but I see both words as directives. And I’ve been told by legalese people that should know that there is no difference between “must” and “shall”. Am I wrong?

Anyone beg to differ?